Whether excluding evidence of a history of sexual abuse in Mr. Mosley's family of origin was contrary to Eddings v. Oklahoma

question presented is whether excluding evidence of a history of sexual abuse in Mr. Mosley’s family of origin was contrary to this Court’s holding in Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) that the sentencer cannot refuse to consider relevant mitigating evidence. I. Under Florida’s capital sentencing scheme, in addition to finding at least one aggravating factor exists, the factfinder must make additional determinations before a capital sentence can be imposed: (1) whether “sufficient aggravating factors exist,” and (2) whether “aggravating factors exist which outweigh the mitigating circumstances.” See Fla. Stat. § 921.141(2) (2019). The second question presented in this case is whether, considering the operation and effect of Florida’s capital sentencing scheme, the Due Process Clause requires those additional determinations to be made beyond a reasonable doubt before the sentencer can choose to impose the death penalty, pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 476-85, 490, 494 n.19 (2000) and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 603-05, 609 (2002). i STATEMENT OF